canon 15mm 2.8 fisheye vs sigma 15mm 2.8 fisheye

In the market for a new fisheye, as I shoot mostly action sports, and a fisheye is crucial. Shooting on a 1.3 crop(1dmk2) narrows down my lens selection pretty quickly, leaving me with the canon 15mm 2.8 and the sigma 15mm 2.8. Everything i've read and every one I've talked to says there is almost no difference in IQ . So, what are the differences then? Is the build quality better on the canon or sigma? How do the focus ring's compare in feel? How about auto focus speed? Basically, in real world practice, what are the differences, and do any warrant spending the extra $50 on the canon?

tophotowa wrote in post #11289591
In the market for a new fisheye, as I shoot mostly action sports, and a fisheye is crucial. Shooting on a 1.3 crop(1dmk2) narrows down my lens selection pretty quickly, leaving me with the canon 15mm 2.8 and the sigma 15mm 2.8. Everything i've read and every one I've talked to says there is almost no difference in IQ . So, what are the differences then? Is the build quality better on the canon or sigma? How do the focus ring's compare in feel? How about auto focus speed? Basically, in real world practice, what are the differences, and do any warrant spending the extra $50 on the canon?

I did tried the canon and sigma at the shop and bought the sigma. I liked the sigma's closer minimum focusing distance. I'm Ok with its crinkle finish. I'm not sure if the new sigma's come with the new coating. The lens cap on the sigma is better as it tends to stay on and protect the front elements. The canon's tend to drop out very easily, even in the bag.

In terms of focusing, the sigma is slightly faster, but probably not very noticeable.
Everything else is quite equal. CA, sharpness etc. If I remember correctly, the sigma pictures were slightly warmer vs canon though. Only noticeable if you place both pictures side by side

midicity wrote in post #11290490
I did tried the canon and sigma at the shop and bought the sigma. I liked the sigma's closer minimum focusing distance. I'm Ok with its crinkle finish. I'm not sure if the new sigma's come with the new coating. The lens cap on the sigma is better as it tends to stay on and protect the front elements. The canon's tend to drop out very easily, even in the bag.

In terms of focusing, the sigma is slightly faster, but probably not very noticeable.
Everything else is quite equal. CA, sharpness etc. If I remember correctly, the sigma pictures were slightly warmer vs canon though. Only noticeable if you place both pictures side by side

Thank you, exactly what I needed to know. I tend to favor a warmer image anyway, so i guess the sigma is the winner!

Had both, kept the Sigma.

gasrocks wrote in post #11306373
Had both, kept the Sigma.

Same here. And midicity's experience reflects mine.

tophotowa wrote in post #11289591
In the market for a new fisheye, as I shoot mostly action sports, and a fisheye is crucial. Shooting on a 1.3 crop(1dmk2) narrows down my lens selection pretty quickly, leaving me with the canon 15mm 2.8 and the sigma 15mm 2.8. Everything i've read and every one I've talked to says there is almost no difference in IQ . So, what are the differences then? Is the build quality better on the canon or sigma? How do the focus ring's compare in feel? How about auto focus speed? Basically, in real world practice, what are the differences, and do any warrant spending the extra $50 on the canon?

a fisheye as crucial in sports photography? Yeah....

The sigma is very nice. And AF is actually not as crucial in a fisheye. I usually prefocused and never focused again for hours as there is so much DOF. Especially if you are using it for sports where the distance of the subject to your lens isn't going to vary that much. (I'm assuming you're shooting things like boarding and extreme jumps and stuff?)

I really cannot see the reason to spend the extra coin on the canon, personally. Just my opinion.

Tried both on my 1DMkII and bought the Sigma. Mine wasn't warmer the way most Sigma's I've had tend to be but the MFD was better as was the price. All else was equal. Its a great little lens.

canonnoob wrote in post #11307721
a fisheye as crucial in sports photography? Yeah....

Ever looked through a skateboard / snowboard / BMX magazine?

Yeah....

Cesium wrote in post #11307846
Ever looked through a skateboard / snowboard / BMX magazine?

Yeah....

yeah, but i wouldnt say that it is crucial... desired, maybe. But crucial, eh..

Cesium wrote in post #11307846
Ever looked through a skateboard / snowboard / BMX magazine?

Yeah....

true, but the FE thing has gotten a little stale in those images imo. I've seen more telephoto type shots showing up that seem a lot fresher. regardless, if you know the technique in shooting one of these, they can produce some very wide, non-fishy looking images and are a great addition to any kit if you have the loot. I sold mine since I wasn't using it all that much but wish I still had it.